Ron Ziegler would understand, Jay.
I know it hasn’t been reflected in the essays here, but I have great sympathy for Jay Carney and all of his predecessors. He has a terrible job. Sometimes it’s an inherently unethical job, as when the White House spokesperson, aka “press secretary,” is sent out to spin, tap-dance, and otherwise obfuscate for his boss, the President, presumably but not always for the good of the nation.
Nonetheless, when someone in Jay Carney’s position loses all credibility and can no longer be trusted to deliver information that can be called truthful by any stretch of the imagination, that individual has to go. The official spokesman of the White House cannot be seen as someone who intentionally lies to the press and the public, and this is the status Carney has now. He has an obligation to resign, even if his boss isn’t astute enough to tell him to, and history indicates that he is not.
In a September 14, 2012 briefing, Carney himself presented, and unequivocally so, what is now known to be the false Administration narrative that the attack on the Benghazi outpost was not “directed at the United States” but was instead the direct result of an anti-Muslim YouTube video, saying, “This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to United States policy, obviously not to the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting — that in no way justifies any violent reaction to it.” In a Nov. 28, 2012, news briefing Carney insisted that there was a “single adjustment” made to the CIA talking points regarding the attack by the Administration, “changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’ ”
On Friday of this week, ABC’s Jonathan Karl, picking up from a similar report by the Weekly Standard, reported that a review of emails proved that those talking points were subjected to 12 significant revisions, orchestrated by the State Department, resulting in the removal of any references to warnings, terror, or the al-Qaida-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia. This week, Carney again asserted that the changes made to the talking points were “a matter of non-substantive factual correction,” referring to the “consolate” change. This is the utmost deceit, and, as was reiterated on ABC’s “Sunday Morning” show, a demonstrable misrepresentation. Obviously, scrubbing the CIA report of any mention of terrorism and al Qaida is not “non-substantive.” Carney’s device seemed to be that the White House itself only made the one change, after the State Department, with input from the White House, oversaw a complete and deceptive re-write. That is dishonest, even though Carney’s only alternative would to be to say, “Okay, you caught us. We lied.”
He’s got to go. He has lied: he’s a liar.
It’s as simple as that.
______________________________
Sources: National Review, The Blaze, ABC, The Atlantic
Graphic: 20 min.
Ethics Alarms 
I have long been amazed how the White House Press Corps’ overwhelming fondness for this administration has resulted in its giving Carney so many free passes. In addition to being a liar, he’s not a particularly talented one – and to my eye his one redeeming quality might be that he’s not as condescending and at least appears to be more earnest than his predecessor, Robert Gibbs.
Then again, I rather suspect he isn’t as smart as Gibbs, either, and it’s possible (small chance, I admit, but still a chance) that Carney is actually doing little more than presenting the information with which he was himself provided. It has been known to happen: spokespeople are sent out with less than a complete picture of what’s really going on. Under this scenario, of course, that would mean that Carney is a fool and that the liars and knaves are further up the food chain.
Like I said: small chance.
You’re quite correct that it’s a nearly impossible job. But people with integrity – and skill – have held the job, and done quite well with it. Tony Snow and Ari Fleischer come to mind – and from my perspective they did extraordinarily well speaking to a press corps that positively hated his boss.
I was also impressed with McCurry. Dee Dee Myers didn’t embarrass herself. I thought Gibbs was among the the worst ever—mumbling, bumbling, arrogant, inarticulate. He may be smart, but when you are the spokesperson and can’t speak, it’s a problem.
I really wish Tony Snow was still alive… His take on this would be fascinating…
It would indeed – but I rather suspect you’d have had a hard time getting it out of him. One of the reasons Snow was popular with the WH press corps, despite the fact that much of it loathed his boss, was that Snow liked and respected his former colleagues in the media, and they him.
I suspect Snow would have had a bit too much class to dish on Carney, regardless of what he thought.
What’s most disturbing is how Carney turns every session into a non-stop, in-your-face series of bland lies, evasions and obfuscations… and obviously has no moral qualms about it. He seems to think that this is inherent in his job description. The only real difference between him and Gibbs is that Carney does this with a smooth, youthful, urban-intellectual style while his predecessor was more “union local boss” in his manner. Both, however, were and are equally despicable. And both have had the unwavering support of their boss. As his designated spokesmen, what does this say of that boss? This is the most disturbing facet of all.
Jay Carney will not resign unless he is forced to, he will not be forced to unless he becomes a drag on the current administration, and he will not become a drag on the current administration unless the press stop covering for him. The press will not stop covering for him, ergo. You are a master of ethics, Jack, but “therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth” Habakkuk 1:4. The system is rotten to the core right now, and there are too few people willing to say so to make a difference.
The press isn’t covering for him. He is useless. That doesn’t mean Obama, who apparently won’t fire anyone unless they are generals who insult him, will have the competence to get rid of him, but it does him no good to have a toady who nobody takes seriously, and that Jay. He’s like Baghdad Bob. The comparison to Ziegler wasn’t happenstance
Actually, I should have said “Obama” when I used the pronoun “him.” The press will keep sucking up to Obama, hence there’s no need for him to sack Carney.
They will never fire Carney and Carney will never resign. If he were a man of quality he would, however, if he were a man of quality he would have never been appointed to that post because he wouldn’t have been a “to the bitter end” party man.
Aren’t you giving the poor fool a bitter rant? That’s a joke ok? You know ol Jay is just giving the press what they all want to hear. He truly believes that the mess of crap they are feeding him is true; he is a fool and you can pick a fool out of that administration’s line up all day. Ol Jay likes being on the camera and you must pass the camera test before you can spew lies that were written on a paper towel. You do know they use paper towels right? When torn in small pieces they flush really well. The non-truths will continue as there is nothing to lose at this point. Had a family member discuss this evening that Benghazi is nothing to get overly excited about and that Reagan and both Bush’s did the same thing, but no one (the Democrats) complained about the dozen or so “events” during their presidential terms. Before I could get a good debate going his phone rang; someone needed to get out of jail for a DUI. The family member thinks when this happens that’s the way to helping those that are less fortunate. The moral of the story is there are more fools on this Earth who believe Jay Carney and sadly they are highly educated.
Relevant (but not sure on the accuracy — including who had the doctored version, etc.): http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/14/email-benghazi-cover-up-evidence/ .
Or — alternate accounts are in circulation.